The author is a Forbes contributor. The opinions expressed are those of the writer.

Loading ...

Loading ...

This story appears in the {{article.article.magazine.pretty_date}} issue of {{article.article.magazine.pubName}}. Subscribe

(photo: The Oatmeal)

The Oatmeal has been one of the best webcomics on the internet for a few years now. Run by Matthew Inman, the site is known for its multipanel illustrations about various issues ranging from the rather silly to the very relatable, all of which has garnered him millions of fans from all over the world.

That's why when he was recently attacked, the internet came to his aide.

A while back, Inman wrote a comic about how "image collecting" website FunnyJunk.com takes his comics, reposts them on their site without his permission, and makes money from the ads they run. He didn't make too much fuss about it by taking legal action, as publically shaming the site was deemed good enough. Since then, FJ has continued to host his comics by the dozens.

That's why Inman was baffled when he received a letter from Charles Carreon, a lawyer known for litigating the Sex.com case. On behalf of FunnyJunk, he was demanding that Inman remove the "slanderous" blog post from the internet, as well as pay $20,000 in damages to FunnyJunk for smearing their brand. To quote Inman:

"You want ME to pay YOU $20,000 for hosting MY unlicensed comics on YOUR website for the past three years?"

He then proceeded to post a laundry list of links on FJ currently linking to his comics, all of which the site has since scrambled to take down. But that's what caching is for, and it's hard to truly erase anything on the internet.

Inman then had a rather hilarious idea, something he's prone to. Rather than pay FunnyJunk a dime, he set out to raise $20,000 from readers via IndieGoGo, and give half to the National Wildlife Federation to save bears (a staple of his site) and half to the American Cancer Society.

In less than a day, Inman is about to top $100,000 in donations, and the initial $20,000 came in during the first hour. The power of the internet can become readily apparent when one of their own is slighted.

But what will happen with FunnyJunk? Do they actually have a case? In short, no. If they ever went to court, any judge with any knowledge of intellectual property should throw it out immediately. A quick examination of FunnyJunk yields that nearly the entire site is made up of images pulled from anywhere BUT FunnyJunk without permission or even credit. As a writer online myself, it can be hard to find sources for everything you post, but you do your best to try. But FunnyJunk? There's nary a source link to be found anywhere, and the excuse of "it's hard to police user submitted content" is one as old as the hills, and is complete BS. Inman was right to call FJ out for their use of his images without permission, and nothing he said is untrue.

There are many sites out there guilty of reposting images without permission or credit (even big, beloved sites likes reddit are among them), but FunnyJunk is far and away one of the worst offenders, and Inman is in the right here. That said, FJ has become a rather large site, and likely has the money to pursue this for real if they want to. But if it came to that, Inman would likely once again find support from the web, and I think he'll wind up fine at the end of all this. As for FunnyJunk? I doubt there are many who would shed a tear if they lost a reader or two as a result of this PR fiasco.

I'm glad to see Inman take this in stride, and as it turns out, money was raised for some good causes as a result of FunnyJunk's idiocy and greed. Support the cause yourself here.